Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (141086)	7/21/2004 5:07:18 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Legal net tightens round Halliburton _____________________________ By Matt Daily in Houston July 21, 2004 A US grand jury has subpoenaed Halliburton seeking information about the work of its Cayman Islands subsidiary in Iran, where it is illegal for American companies to operate. The company, formerly headed by the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, denies any US laws have been broken. But the disclosure, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, came as the Houston-based corporation faces a growing number of domestic and international investigations into its operations from Iraq to Nigeria. "We have a Cayman Islands subsidiary with operations in Iran, and other European subsidiaries that manufacture goods destined for Iran and/or render services in Iran," Halliburton's vice-president, Margaret Carriere, acknowledged in the filing. She said the company had received a subpoena this month requesting documents related to the operations. In an ominous sign, Halliburton has also been notified that the investigation, which was initially launched by the Treasury Department in 2001, has now been handed over to the Justice Department. Advertisement Advertisement The oilfield services company said a subpoena was also issued to a former employee as part of a separate investigation into its Iraq contracts. Halliburton's engineering and construction unit KBR, formerly Kellogg Brown & Root, is the subject of investigations over possible overcharging for fuel and food services in Iraq, where it is the largest contractor. Halliburton said it would comply with the subpoena on the Iranian operations, and reiterated it believed its links to Iran through the Cayman Islands unit did not break the law. Legal experts said a loophole in the law allowed US firms to circumvent the sanctions through foreign-based subsidiaries, if their dealings were not directly managed by US citizens or from US soil. The company said in its annual report that revenues from its subsidiary's business in Iran amounted to about $US80 million ($109 million), or 0.5 per cent of total revenue in 2003. Halliburton issued a statement in October 2003 in response to shareholder complaints about its Iranian links, in which it said it had taken steps to isolate its US operations and managers from its work there. Halliburton said its Cayman Islands subsidiary, Halliburton Products & Services Limited, had its headquarters in Dubai and was active only in Iran, where it provided a range of services to the state-run Iranian National Oil Company. Democrat Senator Frank Lautenberg said the investigation into possible sanctions violations should also address the role of Mr Cheney. "The question must be asked: did this possible violation occur between 1995 and 2000 while Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton?" Senator Lautenberg said in a statement. The US first imposed economic sanctions against Iran in 1979 after the Islamic revolution, when student fundamentalists held 52 American hostages for 444 days. Those sanctions were tightened under presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, although some exemptions were granted in 2000. Criminal violations for corporations in violation of the sanctions can range up to $US500,000, with penalties for individuals of up to $US250,000 and 10 years in jail. smh.com.au

To: GST who wrote (141086)	7/21/2004 5:09:02 AM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Bush's elective war over in Iraq could easily cost close to $200 Billion by the time Bush leaves office next January...Plus we have our country's damaged credibility around the world and thousands of innocent soldiers and Iraqi citizens who have lost their lives...Are we any safer today...? Did we really secure our homeland during the Bush years...? Have we adequately helped address global poverty and the Arab-Israeli conflict (the root causes of A LOT of the terrorism)...? -s2@mostProblemsRequireMUCHmoreThanAMilitarySolution.com

To: GST who wrote (141086)	7/21/2004 12:48:43 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

The thing that I can't escape is the question of "what was the hurry?" Anyone with empathy and an understanding of the tragic suffering and loss that inevitably occurs when soldiers get into a shooting war would have closed all the loose ends BEFORE invading. This is especially true when you consider all of the "what do we do after we win the shooting war" complexities of dealing with a Muslim/Arab country with a long history of resisting occupation and with the default leadership being Islamic clerics. The two bases for a "rush to war" in Iraq that make any sense are, one, that we were in imminent peril and had to act immediately to "protect" ourselves or, two, that if we waited the justifications the Bush Administration put forward to gather support for the war would begin to crumble under the weight of the facts. A possible third "hurry" rationale has been advanced that relies upon the assertion that because of "weather" we had to move earlier rather than later. I don't find that very convincing. For reasons that I think are now apparent, the "immediate danger" justification, even under the most alarmist views of the intelligence we now know that Bush was getting, was woefully inadequate to explain our lack of patience in attempting to resolve the issues through means short of invasion and occupation. As I've already indicated, the "logistics and weather" justification is thin when you consider that magnitude of the decision to invade a sovereign nation. That leaves me believing that Bush "hurried" to war because he thought, I think correctly, that if we waited the justifications the Bush Administration put forward to gather support for the war would begin to crumble under the weight of the facts. For the Bush handlers to whip up a frenzy of support through the use of distorted facts to create fear, with full knowledge that time would result in a clearer vision and calmer decisions, and then to act before that could happen is a terrible indictment of the Bush Administration. In addition it soundly supports your "fraud" hypothesis because the "hurry" is only necessary IF the Bush war hawks KNEW that they were basing their rationales on facts that would NOT withstand careful scrutiny. The "humanitarian" justification is pure fantasy. If you look at the pre-war statements and projected policies of the "we're not the world's policemen" Bush people, it's a little hard to see why and where they suddenly became willing to expend hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of American lives to help those "poor Iraqis" who hadn't asked for help. In addition, it appears that we're killing the same radical Islamics that Saddam was killing. But of course if you're a "trust the man in charge" believer, you'll accept a contrived feel good reason when there's nothing else to rely upon.